Canadians: What is up with your crazy Olympic qualifying process?

in the know? me too wrote:

Um, yeah wrote:

In terms of probable finals with Canadian content, I'd suggest 100mH, wH, wHep, m10,000, mMar, mSP, mDec, mHJ. Also lesser chances of m1500 or m200. Then there's the w4x400 (ranked about 9th) or m4x100. I'd say that's more than 3.

Damn, man. You ARE deluded.

You think each of these is "probable"?

Yes. You don't?

100mH: we've got two former international medalists, and they may not even be our fastest entrants. Probable finalist in there somewhere.

wH: 7th ranked in 2012. Probable finalist (top 12).

wHep: Two entrants. Straight final. Guaranteed finalist(s).

m10,000: Two entrants. Straight final. Guaranteed finalist(s).

mMar: Three entrants. Straight final. Guaranteed finalist(s).

mSP: 6th and 9th ranked in 2012. Probable finalist(s) (top 12).

mDec: One entrant. Straight final. Guaranteed finalist.

mHJ: 5th and 6th ranked in 2012. Probable finalist(s) (top 12).

Less likely for m1500, m200 (10th ranked in 2012 limiting to top 3 per country).

m4x100 7th ranked in 2012. Possible finalist.

w4x400 7th ranked in 2012. Possible finalist.

Please explain clearly why you do not think any of those 'probable' or 'guaranteed' finalists are not probable or guaranteed or stop making such negative comments about our athletes capabilities without substantiating reasoning.

I count 4 guaranteed finalist(s) and 4 probables. What specific three events are you expecting?

If I had a say in the Canadian government run agency "Athletics Canada"... which I don't have a say. If an athlete made the A Standard, at that point , the skill levels is demonstrated. Thus, I would give the athlete and the coach the option to best determine the best schedule for the athlete to prepare for the Olympics. Constant racing or secluded training, only the Athlete knows what is best. But I do get it, the Track athletes don't have the same voice as say the NHL players with hockey Canada. I covered the Vancouver games, and believe me , the NHL agents told Bob Nichols how much he could breath and what time of day he could crap.

ksully330 wrote:

Unless he ended up injured after the 'A' standard there would only a minuscule possibility of him not hitting a 'B' at some point before he needed to.

'A' standard athletes aren't worried about making a 'B.'

So why require it? So why require it? So why require it?

You do realize that you're proving my point, right? If the repeat B criteria won't keep anyone off the team, it is by definition without function.

You seem to want to argue that the repeat B criteria is both (a) important for limiting the team and (b) basically guaranteed for A standard holders. It can't be both.

Which is it? If the latter, please answer the question I've repeated three times above for your benefit.

This thread keeps dragging on and on with a bunch of Canadian athletics inside baseball (an expression for you Blue Jays fans).

The ins and outs of bureaucracy are not something anyone cares about but the bureaucrats.

The question that matters is why can't a country with the kind of huge public and private resources that Canada has figure out how to send everyone to the Olympics who qualifies?

Let's get to the point wrote:

The question that matters is why can't a country with the kind of huge public and private resources that Canada has figure out how to send everyone to the Olympics who qualifies?

Maybe that's a question you should be asking the Canadian Olympic Committee as it has been pointed out many times that it is their policies and OTP driving the selection criteria, not AC looking for how to 'screw' athletes.

[quote 'A' standard athletes aren't worried about making a 'B.'[/quote]

So why require it? So why require it? So why require it?

[/quote]

The only scenario that I can think of is that an athlete who runs an A standard early in the qualifying window must "prove fitness" closer to the actual Games by running a B standard.

(I apologize if this was already stated, I did not read all 7 pages)

Agree with the sentiment but don't hold breath. Those who come on here and take sideswipes at others by name should only do so if they have the balls to identify themselves by name.

Um, no wrote:

And anytime Boyd gets trashed here, that will get deleted too. Carry on.

Let's get to the point wrote:

The question that matters is why can't a country with the kind of huge public and private resources that Canada has figure out how to send everyone to the Olympics who qualifies?

Correct.

I'm not defending it. Reading comprehension goes a long way on these boards. I'm saying if I made the 'A' standard, I wasn't about to waste my time complaining about having to also make a 'B' standard. And if 'A' standard athlete is complaining about having to also run a 'B' standard, well, they are going to have some issues when they get to the Games. But that's the thing. The 'A' standard athletes aren't complaining about having to make a 'B' standard. They are just getting on with the job at hand, as they should.

itk?mt wrote:

ksully330 wrote:

Unless he ended up injured after the 'A' standard there would only a minuscule possibility of him not hitting a 'B' at some point before he needed to.

'A' standard athletes aren't worried about making a 'B.'

So why require it? So why require it? So why require it?

You do realize that you're proving my point, right? If the repeat B criteria won't keep anyone off the team, it is by definition without function.

You seem to want to argue that the repeat B criteria is both (a) important for limiting the team and (b) basically guaranteed for A standard holders. It can't be both.

Which is it? If the latter, please answer the question I've repeated three times above for your benefit.

Looks like Aaron Brown missed it again at the NCAAs...but here is the question--with the +1.4 wind in the biggest meet of his year and not making the B standard, does he deserve to go to the Olympics?

Heat 2 Wind: +1.4

Place Athlete Name Yr Affiliation Time Qual

1 Harry Adams JR Auburn 9.96 Q

2 Andrew Riley SR Illinois 10.02 Q

3 Charles Silmon JR TCU 10.05 q

4 Isiah Young JR Mississippi 10.09

5 Keenan Brock SO Auburn 10.18

6 Aaron Brown SO USC 10.26

7 Reggie Dixon SR Hampton 10.27

DNS Marquise Goodwin JR Texas

Thats not much wind. Keep him home on the farm.

So, is Cam in now?

Cdn doubter wrote:

Looks like Aaron Brown missed it again at the NCAAs

Wow. "Um, yeah" and Kevin seemed to think it was totally trivial for an A qualifier to make more Bs. Maybe not?

Where to next, "Um, Yeah"? I think you said there were "dozens" of chances for a sprinter to get the repeat performance?

No, but you did have to waste your time DOING it.

I'd think a thrower who got the A in March might like to shift phases for a while, then get back to peak performances in July-August. Not under the Canadian system!

Um, says you? Says AC? Seems subjective, doesn't it?

Um, isn't that why we this organization called the IAAF has a "standard" by which people "qualify"?

This is the A - anyone with it is going to be ahead of MANY people from countries who actually want to send athletes and will even take a B if that's the best available in the event.

Kevin. Not complaining loudly in the media is not the same thing as having no complaint, is it? Particularly within a system known for subjective and punitive decisions affecting athletes.

How was I wasting my time? I was just supposed to stop racing after hitting the 'A' standard. Ridiculous statement. I was going to race 8-10 times as it was. Each race was a race with a purpose.

IAAF has a minimal "entry" standard. 'A' standard to enter more than 1 athlete, 'B' standard to enter 1 athlete. If they wanted every country to use only their "entry" standards then it would be mandated to all the NSO's. As it stands right now the IAAF allows any country to make their standards more difficult than the minimal entry standards. Canada is not alone in having requirements that are more onerous that simply making the 'A' standard.

Subjective? I think you need to look up the definition. There is no subjectivity in the selection criteria. You make the standards as laid out in the AC selection criteria and finish top 3 at trials you go...no discussion, no debate. That is about as far from subjective as can be. Just because there are more requirements to make the Canadian team than simply making the 'A' standard doesn't make the criteria subjective...just harder.

Yes, it would be a shame if Sultana were left home when she is currently ranked 8th in the world. And maybe she is in a different training phase. I can't comment to that because I don't know how throwers periodize their training. But, taking a quick look at the IAAF top lists of every other HT in the top 20, there best throws of the year have come from 4/22 though now. Are these throwers (many of them Olympic & WC medallists) not aiming to peak in August as well?

I'm guessing her plan is to throw A standard within the qualifying period, don't you? Since the criteria has been out for some time now, I'm sure her season was planned out well in advance of her throwing 75m in March. So it's a bit of stretch to make the argument that she just moved into a different training phase when her training and competition phases would have been already mapped out with the purpose of hitting standard within the AC qualification period.

Again, I'm not defending the criteria, but your arguments against it are weak. You make it seem like our athletes are so feebly minded that the added addition of a 'B' standard is some huge onerous task for them and the fact is, it isn't. It's almost more insulting that you think a 'B' standard in addition to the 'A' standard is some huge stumbling block to making the Olympic team than the fact that AC doesn't deem an 'A' standard worthy enough in itself to make the team.

If you want to know my opinion, I think if you can hit the 'A' standard then you've certainly shown you have the talent and ability and focus to do so again...hopefully at the Olympics when it matters. But adding a 'B' standard requirement wasn't affecting my preparation or my mindset as you would like to make it seem with our other 'A' standard athletes.

ksully330 wrote:

Yes, it would be a shame if Sultana were left home when she is currently ranked 8th in the world.

Athlete tracker on the Trials site says Sultana has made the standards and just needs to place top 3.

Athlete tracker wrote:

ksully330 wrote:

Yes, it would be a shame if Sultana were left home when she is currently ranked 8th in the world.

Athlete tracker on the Trials site says Sultana has made the standards and just needs to place top 3.

I was wondering about that myself but everyone seemed up in arms about Sultana not qualifying for the team so I just went along with the example.

ksully330 wrote:

Yes, it would be a shame if Sultana were left home when she is currently ranked 8th in the world.

Athlete tracker wrote:

Athlete tracker on the Trials site says Sultana has made the standards and just needs to place top 3.

ksully330 wrote:

I was wondering about that myself but everyone seemed up in arms about Sultana not qualifying for the team so I just went along with the example.

Pay attention, guys.

With her March "A+" qualifier somehow not valid (early season doesn't count - more AC wisdom), she was required to go hit another B. As shown right here:

Which she dutifully did. As shown right here:

Not sure how it is that throwing five meters LESS than an already-achieved "A+" seasonal best is the thing that qualifies a person, but obviously I think this system is ridiculous in a number of ways.

Well, "um, yeah," the list of athletes with an A who still need to "back it up" with a B or be excluded from the games is still at three A-qualifiers. Athletes whom most countries on earth would send (assuming top 3 at trials).

As I predicted.

Um, let's see:

Aaron Brown. 100m. Has A. Needs B.

Aaron Brown. 200m. Has A. Needs B.

Phylicia George. 100m. Has A. Needs B.

Thankfully Frizell went and threw a B to "back up" her "A+" from March. We were really looking like idiots on that one, even you seemed to agree. But in exchange for that "A+" qualifier who was let in thanks to a B throw (???), we now have one A qualifier in each of the m/w 100 who need to run a B in the next 20 days. Otherwise, no 100m athletes for CAN. Ouch, Canada!